Crossing the line: access to trauma care across state borders.

Objective: This study investigates the challenge posed by state borders by identifying the population, injury, and geographic scope of areas of the country where the closest trauma center is out-of-state, and by collating state emergency medical services (EMS) policies relevant to cross-border trauma transport. Methods: We identified designated levels I, II, and III trauma centers using data from American Trauma Society. ArcGIS was used to map the distance between US census block groups and trauma centers to identify the geographic areas for which cross-border transport may be most expedient. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration data were queried to quantify the proportion of fatal crashes occurring in the areas of interest. State EMS protocols were categorized by stance on cross-border transport. Results: Of 237 596 included US census block groups, 18 499 (7.8%) were closest to an out-of-state designated level I or II trauma center. These census block groups accounted for 6.9% of the US population and 9.5% of all motor vehicle fatalities. With the inclusion of level III trauma centers, the number of US census block groups closest to an out-of-state designated level I, II, or III trauma center decreased to 13 690 (5.8%). These census block groups accounted for 5.1% of the US population and 7.1% of all motor vehicle fatalities. Of the 48 contiguous states, 30 encourage cross-border transport, 2 discourage it, 12 are neutral, and 4 leave it to local discretion. Conclusion: Cross-border transport can expedite access to care in at least 5% of US census block groups. While few states discourage this practice, more robust policy guidance could reduce delays and enhance care. Level of Evidence: III, Epidemiological.

LeFort III Versus Monobloc Frontofacial Advancement: A Comparative Analysis of Soft Tissue Changes.

INTRODUCTION: The LeFort III and monobloc are commonly used midface advancement procedures for patients with syndromic craniosynostosis with well characterized postoperative skeletal changes. However, the differential effects of these procedures on facial soft tissues are less understood. The purpose of this study was to critically analyze and compare the effects of these 2 procedures on the overlying soft tissues of the face. METHODS: Frontal and lateral preoperative and postoperative photographs of patients undergoing monobloc or LeFort III were retrospectively analyzed using ImageJ to measure soft tissue landmarks. Measurements included height of facial thirds, nasal length and width, intercanthal distance, and palpebral fissure height and width. Facial convexity was quantified by calculating the angle between sellion (radix), subnasale, and pogonion on lateral photographs. RESULTS: Twenty-five patients with an average age of 6.7 years (range 4.8-14.5) undergoing monobloc (n=12) and LeFort III (n=13) were identified retrospectively and analyzed preoperatively and 6.4±3.6 months postoperatively. Patients undergoing LeFort III had a greater average postoperative increase in facial convexity angle acuity (28.2°) than patients undergoing monobloc (17.8°, P =0.021). Patients in both groups experience postoperative increases in nasal width ( P <0.001) and decreases in palpebral fissure height ( P <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Both subcranial LeFort III advancements and monobloc frontofacial advancements resulted in significant changes in the soft tissues. Patients undergoing LeFort III procedures achieved greater acuity of the facial convexity angle, likely because the nasion is not advanced with the LeFort III segment.

Characterizing Interventions and Family Assistance of a Nurse Navigation Program in Orofacial Cleft Care.

OBJECTIVE: Characterize the interventions and assistance employed by a cleft nurse navigator (CNN) which have mediated improvement in care equity at our institution. DESIGN: Retrospective study. SETTING: Academic tertiary care center. PATIENTS, PARTICIPANTS: Patients presenting with cleft lip and/or cleft palate presenting between August 2020 and August 2021 with exclusions for syndromic diagnosis, Pierre-Robin sequence, late (> 6 months) presentation, and prior cleft surgery at outside institutions. INTERVENTIONS: Multidisciplinary cleft nurse navigator program. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Family interactions with the CNN by phone, text, and email across the first year of life including feeding support, nasoalveolar molding (NAM) assistance, appointment scheduling, financial assistance, addressing perioperative concerns, and facilitating physician consults. Patient weight and surgical timing were also recorded. RESULTS: Sixty-nine patients were included with a total of 639 interactions between the CNN and families. Scheduling support (30%), addressing perioperative concerns (22%), and feeding support (20%) were the most common interactions. Feeding support and NAM assistance were heavily distributed in the first 3 months of life compared to after 3 months (P < .001). Median age at first contact was 1 week (range: 22 weeks gestation-14 weeks). There was no difference in the proportion of families receiving feeding support, NAM assistance, or scheduling assistance based on insurance status or race (P > .05 for all). CONCLUSIONS: Scheduling assistance, addressing perioperative concerns, and feeding support are the predominant methods by which the CNN interacts with and assists families of patients with cleft conditions. CNN service distribution is largely equitable between demographic groups.